Friday, June 24, 2011

I normally don't tolerate discussion of "Oneness" theology on my blog, i.e. in the comment boxes. However, there seems to be some interest in it of late from some of my commenters, so I'll offer a challenge to Oneness advocates, that they are free to answer in the comment box of this blog post. And, of course, my Trinitarian commenters are also free to provide their own challenges to Oneness theology, especially if they think they have something better than mine.

I will say this first, I don't pretend to be an expert on the Oneness view - and there may be more than one "Oneness view" about some of the Bible verses that I think contradict Oneness theology, or at least some possible form of Oneness Theology. I assume that Oneness theologians will acknowledge the authority of the Bible. I hope that they will seriously consider the implications of the passages below.

Here are two such passages (from the same chapter):

1) John 17:1-6These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee: as thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.

2) John 17:21-26 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me. Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world. O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me. And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.

It seems to me that these two passages (from the same chapter) are a significant obstacle to Oneness Theology for the following reasons:

a) It seems obvious that Jesus is praying to someone who is not Jesus, namely the Father. The Father is not Jesus. Therefore, while the Father and Jesus may be one in some sense (see John 17:21, for example), they are not one in another sense.

b) The sense on which they are not one is the sense of personhood. They are not one person. By "person" I don't mean "human being," since (for example) an angel is a "person" without being a human being, and God is three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) in one divine being.

c) One proof of (b) is the love of the Father for the Son. Love is a very personal attitude.

d) Moreover, the Father loved the Son before Creation. This means that persons of the Trinity are not simply modes of God - they are not God revealing himself to man in different ways (sometimes as a Father, sometimes as a Son). Instead, the persons have real distinction and real relation to one another, such that before the foundation of the world, they had love for one another.

e) Additionally, the Son had glory before Creation. This rules out any view that Jesus is simply a man somehow divinized by God abiding in him, such that Jesus only speaks to the Father as a man speaks to God and not as God speaks to God.

So, the challenge to any advocates of Oneness Theology is to make sense of John 17, while addressing the issues identified in (a)-(e).

Caveat: I'm interested in hearing what the Oneness answer to this challenge is. I think I've set up the challenge so that the challenge is not "why not Trinitarianism." That's not the challenge.

89 comments:

Pay attention TF, Keyword being *The Glory* Jesus had with the father before the world was. In John 17:5 Does not, I repeat; does not refer to pre-existence of the son of God. The son of God was Born of Mary.....Deny that?

The Reformed trinitarians vacuum isolate passages from all other passages from their continued context in proof text to form their doctrines. And Gloss over the keyword and focus upon what they think is obvious.

Do you really think we cannot see what you see in John 17:5? There is more to the Glory of which Jesus and John spoke ....

The glory refers to His(The sons) shedding of his sinless blood Through *His FLESH* in redemptive sacrifice for mankind. It has nothing to do with pre-existence.

Let me repeat this so that you will understand? When Jesus spoke about his glory in John 17:5 he was speaking about His precious sacrifice of his sinless flesh, not pre-existence.

We understand if you take John 17:5 at face value you would get that meaning but it is much deeper than that that and your interpretation actually contradicts scripture.

Romans 5:14 Adam who was the figure of him that was to Come. Meaning the son was not back there but coming even though Adam was made in his image. BTW that is what God was saying In (Genesis 1:26) When God said: *Let us make man in our image after our likeness.

The Us and Our is inclusive of the son.(The flesh God incarnated) Not god jr. We are not talking about multiple persons of god but the coming incarnation. God manifest in the Flesh. You do not have that. What you have is multiple god persons.

The continued context of John 17:24

John 17:24 The disciples were about to witness *the glory* he had with the father before the world was.

Father,I will that they also,whom thou hast given me,be with me where I am that *THEY MAY BEHOLD MY GLORY>*

They were about to behold his glory in his passion!

His glory was spoken of in both the past tense, and in the future tense that the disciples were about to behold, these were not two different glories, but the same glory and referred to Jesus being slain in his FLESH and had nothing to do with with him literally pre-existing in eternity as a *god the son.*

Jesus also said:The Holy Ghost was not yet Given for Jesus was **not yet Glorified.**(The ultimate price of his sinless flesh sacrifice for mankind to have the spirit.(John 7:38-39)

We love taking your criticism of John 17:5-24 because you are as wrong about it as wrong can be!

I have asked trinitarain after trinitarain and they do not see the obvious contradiction. God has no need to pray to anyone. This is inherent Antichrist doctrine within the trinity. A denial that Jesus Christ came in the flesh and is god the son only.(1st John 4:2)

In the biblical sense of the incarnation God was in Christ.(2nd Cor.5:19) One realGod and One real man. trinity has a hybird mixture with no distinction.

"The glory refers to His(The sons) shedding of his sinless blood Through *His FLESH* in redemptive sacrifice for mankind."

How does that even fit?

And now, O Father, "shed my/ours/your sinless blood in a redemptive sacrifice for mankind" thou me with thine own self with the "shedding my/ours/your sinless blood in a redemptive sacrifice for mankind" which I had with thee before the world was...

Oneness Pentecostals are not Arians or Unitarians. neither believe Jesus is God. We do! We do not call ourselves "Modalists" but trinitarains call us Modalists because of ancient Oneness using the term Mode in relation God's being.

Oneness Pentecostals are uniterian like Arians and others who deny the distinctions of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit in the one being of God in the sense that they have that God is uni-personal instead of tri-personal as the Trinity teaches. It is indeed crazy when Modalist claim the Trinity teaches that we believe in 3 gods when that is not true and then have the nerve to cry misrepresentation when they claim their own views are distorted or misrepresented. Appears modalist do that which they accuse of others.

No Oneness are not Unitarian! The term Unitarian means* one person of God.* We believe God is only a person in the person of the son. Jesus is the Only person of God.

Before the Incarnation God as spirit was not a person at all.(No person but Spirit)

Do persons die? Did God die? When I use the term person am I speaking of God, or man?

Your awful limited weak term not found in the definition in which you use it is nowhere found in scripture and is weak.

We do make a distinction between the father and the son .

We have One real God, and on real man, in Jesus. That is the true incarnation.

One real God and One real man do not two persons of god make because a real man that you do not have would not be another person of God.

Do you understand? No of course not.

That is how Jesus could pray the real prays that he prayed and it wa not s god the fictitious son. God cannot pray to God(Fakery)

Jesus did not even know the time of his own second coming but the father only(Mark 13:32) because the father only was the one God incarnating him and in heaven at the same time the son could not know anything without the father revealing it to the real limited man that was incarnated by the one God.

You believe Jesus is the word/Logos as "God the son" in John 1:1 correct?

I do not believe that is what John is teaching.

Any way you think about that view you end up with polytheism.

In the beginning was the word(God the son) and the word( God the son) was with God (the father) And the word was God.(The father)

I believe Jesus was the God to whom the word was with and the word was not another person of God at all.

The word was *with* God in the sense as pertaining to God. You cannot separate God from his word. (His creative spoken power. He is not even God without it.

By the word/Logos were the heavens made and all the Host of them by the breath of His mouth.(Psalm 33:6 Septuagint)

When the word was made flesh. All of God's power did not leave God. This was God's spoken creative expression and promise from the beginning come to fruition. The serpent was about to get his head bruised and cut off!

Yes, we think that the Logos of John 1:1 is God the Son. We think that because John tells us that the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth (John 1:14).

Sabellian-modalists certainly have their work cut out for them when holding to sequential, linear (i.e. non-simultaneous) manifestations/modes of God when the Scriptures plainly, consistently, and clearly represent God as a simultaneously and personally active agent in more than one manifestation/mode (i.e. "Person").

Several examples have already been given which thus far have only been protested, but not exegeted, but of course there are many, many others.

With a few distinctions this discussion isn't too far removed from Athanasius' arguments contra the Arians.

But of the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.

You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions."

And, "You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands, they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment, like a robe you will roll them up, like a garment they will be changed.

But you are the same, and your years will have no end."

In Hebrews 1:8-12 we see the Father addressing the Son as eternal God, who laid the foundations of the earth, and made the heavens; the Son who remains the same, and whose years have no end.

This corresponds well to John 1 and Colossians 1:15-16 which designate Jesus Christ as the Creator:

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities — all things were created through him and for him.

Jesus is identified clearly as the Creator of all things found in Genesis 1, which obviously pre-dates His actual incarnation, proving, as John 1 declares, that He [Christ] was in the beginning with God, and was [and is] God.

Since Jesus Christ is not the Father, and the Father is not Jesus Christ and since we have the Scriptural witness that there is only One true and living God, in addition to the Scriptural witness that there are at least two divine agents plainly, consistently, and clearly represented as God - and represented as simultaneously and personally active agents in more than one manifestation/mode (i.e. "Person"), then we honor the Scriptures as God's self-revelation and accept that He exists as He says, as the Triune One true and living God.

And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, with seven horns and with seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth. And he went and took the scroll from the right hand of him who was seated on the throne. And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. And they sang a new song, saying,

"Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals,for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation, and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth."

Then I looked, and I heard around the throne and the living creatures and the elders the voice of many angels, numbering myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands, saying with a loud voice, "Worthy is the Lamb who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing!" And I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea, and all that is in them, saying, "To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever!" And the four living creatures said, "Amen!" and the elders fell down and worshiped. - Rev. 5:6-14

In the very throneroom of heaven we see all of creation worshipping Him who sits upon the throne and the Lamb.

"Pay attention TF, Keyword being *The Glory* Jesus had with the father before the world was. ..."

Ha!

What irony here?

In light of these verses through the Wisdom Peter received by His Lord's Righteousness, I would say that those words are ironic.

Here's what Peter wrote:

1Pe 5:8 Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. 1Pe 5:9 Resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same kinds of suffering are being experienced by your brotherhood throughout the world. 1Pe 5:10 And after you have suffered a little while, the God of all grace, who has called you to his eternal glory in Christ, will himself restore, confirm, strengthen, and establish you. 1Pe 5:11 To him be the dominion forever and ever. Amen.

How is it, then, that God can call us out of darkness and call us into His marvelous light, that eternal glory, "in Christ"?

This would be impossible to understand by Oneness theology and by those devoid of the Spirit of Grace and Truth!

Here is a good understanding that conveys the Trinitarian position:

1Ti 3:16 Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.

Notice in those Words of Scripture what the Holy Spirit does so that Jesus Christ can return back to that place He was sent from to share again in that Glory He had with Him who sent Him to live for, die for and to rise again for our Justification after being vindicated by the Spirit!

Again and again we see simultaneous personal distinctions and yet simultaneous personal relationships between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit indicating the unique and frankly mind-boggling way in which the One true and living God of the Holy Bible exists as One Triune divine Being.

If we truly desire to honor Him then we must know Him as He is, and if we are to honor Him by knowing Him as He is, then we must bow the knee and accept Him as He reveals Himself in Scripture.

"If we truly desire to honor Him then we must know Him as He is, and if we are to honor Him by knowing Him as He is, then we must bow the knee and accept Him as He reveals Himself in Scripture."

I think with those words you are taking way to much credit! It seems with those words you are saying you are the one doing all that?

The Honor due is done by Christ in us. It is Jesus Who saves us from our sins and selves. There is no way I will ever be able to "honor" God the way you describe honoring God there in those words. There is no way I "can" bow the knee or accept Him as He reveals Himself in Scripture. This is a work of His Grace by the gift of Faith and His Righteousness done to us so that all the Glory goes to God which I trust all True Believers agree with?

It wasn't until the "Law of Righteousness" came alive in me, dead in my trespasses and sins, by Divine appointment; and by calling; and by predetermined election, that I even realized or began to glimpse just how totally depraved I am and dead in my own trespasses and sins. I am still waiting for any dead man to do what you prescribe there.

God is not calling you or me to get better in this life. He is calling you and me to die to self and allow Christ in to "live" fully through our life His Life for the Glory of God through us; and we, then, through Christ, by One Spirit, the Holy Spirit, can confidently approach God, our Heavenly Father, by the gift of Faith, too, to receive His Grace, that that we do not deserve; Mercy, that that we should not receive, but do; and because of this Grace and Mercy, we now have a relationship of Peace with God even while, as yet, we are still sojourning through this life until we pass to that Eternal Inheritance that awaits us in Eternal Glory, His Eternal Glory in Christ, that He, by His Son's own blood, having purchased Eternal Redemption with it for us, gives to all of us appointed to Eternal Life, Eternal Life!

Remember what the Prophet said? He said, we must decrease, too, so that He will increase.

Remember how the Apostle Paul concluded it all?

Here is what he wrote about that:

1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. 1Co 15:23 But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. 1Co 15:24 Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. 1Co 15:25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 1Co 15:26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 1Co 15:27 For "God has put all things in subjection under his feet." But when it says, "all things are put in subjection," it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him. 1Co 15:28 When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all.

We, now that we have been set at liberty, are slaves of Christ and that for the Glory of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit and these Three are One! :)

Just to consider this, ponder these Words, fresh out of Peter's new mouth? Hopefully something of the nature of what we are addressing will make sense within. See if you "catch" the contrasts herein:

Act 5:29 But Peter and the apostles answered, "We must obey God rather than men. Act 5:30 The God of our fathers raised Jesus, whom you killed by hanging him on a tree. Act 5:31 God exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. Act 5:32 And we are witnesses to these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him." Act 5:33 When they heard this, they were enraged and wanted to kill them.

mlculwell: We have One real God, and on real man, in Jesus. That is the true incarnation.

One real God and One real man do not two persons of god make because a real man that you do not have would not be another person of God.

This appears to be a twist on classical Oneness doctrine, which , as has been previously pointed out, is essentially Sabellianism. This appears to have some of the Nestorian heresy mixed in, which denied the union of the Divine and Human natures in Christ. At some point every Unitarian/Oneness etc. doctrine ends up w/ a heretical Christology.

Do you understand? No of course not.

Careful. those words were always music to Columbo's ears. :^)Tell me, in John 1:18, how can "the only God, who is at the Father's side," be at the Father's side if the Father and Son are not distinct personalities?

Corme Deo wrote"Again and again we see simultaneous personal distinctions and yet simultaneous personal relationships between the Father, the Son".

Yeah so? We have One real man and One real god How is that not personal distinctions? A real man who was Incarnated by the real God is not and cannot be another person of God .

I see nothing here from any of you that touches one what i have said!

We were Bought through his Glory and Get share what he has purchased through that Glory.

TF , The Logos of John 1:1 is not god the son! If he were then there are two gods according to your version of John 1:1.... I did not ask for your opinion on what you think about the weak phrase person and the definition you give for your version of God. We can both give those but they are worthless in our quest for truth.

Corem wrote:"Sabellian-modalists certainly have their work cut out for them when holding to sequential, linear (i.e. non-simultaneous) manifestations/modes of God."

The father and the son existed at the same time! Do you understand? I doubt it. I have to waste all of my time fixxing your lying apologists nonsesne. One real man and One real God who incarnated the real man would have to exist at the same time. How many times do I have to tell you? Yet you keep lying through your teeth about our doctrine.

"The father and the son existed at the same time! Do you understand? I doubt it. I have to waste all of my time fixxing your lying apologists nonsesne. One real man and One real God who incarnated the real man would have to exist at the same time. How many times do I have to tell you? Yet you keep lying through your teeth about our doctrine. "

Your doctrines are not clearly explained, Manuel. In some places it seems like you are saying that "Jesus" refers to a man and "the Father" refers to God, and that the man and God are distinct, such that they both exist at the same time.

But that would mean that Jesus is man, not God (or so it seems).

Yet you affirm that Jesus is God.

So, it is hard is to see how your positions are supposed to make any kind of sense (even leaving aside the question about whether they are true or false as judged by the Word of God).

Based upon the content of Galatians 2:20 my emphasis is in good company.

The One true and living God of the Holy Bible is the God of the living, not of the dead. He is the God of all those believing (John 3:16).

This is why Christians are rightly described as believers.

If one doesn't believe - i.e. have a personal, living, abiding faith in Christ then that person certainly has not been born-again, and thus is not a Christian, and therefore cannot inherit the Kingdom of heaven (John 3:1-7).

There's a tendency in some circles to de-emphasize the importance of individual, personal repentance and faith in Christ, just as there's a tendency in some circles to de-emphasize the importance of the covenant community of saints, who form the temple of the living God.

May those who are called by His name embrace the infallible Biblical witness of both these great and glorious twin truths.

The father and the son existed at the same time! Do you understand? I doubt it. I have to waste all of my time fixxing your lying apologists nonsesne. One real man and One real God who incarnated the real man would have to exist at the same time. How many times do I have to tell you? Yet you keep lying through your teeth about our doctrine.

How many is the Father + the Son?

1 + 1 = ?

When the Bible speaks of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit and it appends to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit incommunicable divine attributes and titles reserved solely for the One true and living God, and when the Bible does so with the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit acting as individual, divine, personal agents; agents which are plainly, consistently, and clearly represented as God - and which are also presented as being simultaneously active, personal agents in more than one manifestation/mode (i.e. "Person") at the same time, then what are we to do?

I'll tell you, we are to honor the Scriptures as God's self-revelation and accept that He exists as He says, as the Triune One true and living God.

mlculwell: We have One real God, and on real man, in Jesus. That is the true incarnation.

One real God and One real man do not two persons of god make because a real man that you do not have would not be another person of God.

Mike wrote: This appears to be a twist on classical Oneness doctrine, which , as has been previously pointed out, ------------------------------------

I am Oneness and Know what I believe. I am sorry if this does not fit what your apologist tell you but I have not seen one yet give you trins. the straight of anything.------------------------------------Mike wrote:"is essentially Sabellianism. This appears to have some of the Nestorian heresy mixed in, which denied the union of the Divine and Human natures in Christ. At some point every Unitarian/Oneness etc. doctrine ends up w/ a heretical Christology.------------------------------------ What? Where did you read where I said one single sentence about two complete natures In Jesus? I can tell you I did not use those copout terms because I never do! You are trying to lead into your familiar ground because of your apologetics.

Nestorius divided Christ into two persons. I have already denied that false doctrine because i have said God is not a person outside the person of the son! You sir have no idea what you are talking about deal with what I say and not with what you think I am saying.

Do you understand? No of course not.------------------------------------Mike wrote:Careful. those words were always music to Columbo's ears. :^)Tell me, in John 1:18, how can "the only God, who is at the Father's side," be at the Father's side if the Father and Son are not distinct personalities?------------------------------------It Is clear you do not understand.

John 1:18 from the ESV is awful! The Only God at the other Gods side???? The only begotten God? as opposed to the other two unbegoten Gods? Do you not see how blatantly polytheistic that is? It is thoughtless on trinitarians part to even use that nonsesne!

TF:Your doctrines are not clearly explained,-----------------------------------And yours are TF? Please? That is very pompous and presumptuous of you. Sorry no disrespect but the same right back at you. Everything you say concerning your doctrine of the trinity is a way to hide your polytheism I find all kinds of contradictions and problems with your doctrine that you cannot see...

-----------------------------------

TF wrote:Manuel. In some places it seems like you are saying that "Jesus" refers to a man and "the Father" refers to God, and that the man and God are distinct, such that they both exist at the same time.------------------------------------What, Really?

What is that you have exactly TF? Is Jesus a real man or not? Or have you just been giving lip service to that fact?

I believe Jesus is both Man and God at the same time and are not confused in the incarnation or he is neither!

Yes they Both exist at the same time! Tf a real man and a real God cannot be two persons of God. Jesus is a man But he is also the one God you confuse those facts in your version of Jesus which I vehemently deny as false doctrine! Yes I deny the trinity!------------------------------------

TF:But that would mean that Jesus is man, not God (or so it seems).

Yet you affirm that Jesus is God.------------------------------------ splain that please? How so? So you are admitting you do not have a man but a sham fakery. Are you the Nestorian then with two Natures? You better believe I affirm Jesus is God! I am the Only one who can. I can also affirm he was a real man. You cannot do that.

------------------------------------

TF:So, it is hard is to see how your positions are supposed to make any kind of sense (even leaving aside the question about whether they are true or false as judged by the Word of God).------------------------------------

Right back at you. I am not afraid to go anywhere But watch that you do not stray to far from your creeds(Extra biblical nonsesne that you put up on the same level as scripture when they are on the same level as the book of Mormon.) that tell you how to think

According to Oneness theology who specifically is the divine agency of creation in Genesis 1 (Father, Son, both, other)?

According to Oneness theology in Revelation 5:6-14 who specifically is receiving worship from the whole of the created order in the heavenly throne room given "to Him who sits upon the throne and the Lamb"?

And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, with seven horns and with seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth. And he went and took the scroll from the right hand of him who was seated on the throne. And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. And they sang a new song, saying,

"Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals,for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation, and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth."

Then I looked, and I heard around the throne and the living creatures and the elders the voice of many angels, numbering myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands, saying with a loud voice, "Worthy is the Lamb who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing!" And I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea, and all that is in them, saying, "To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever!" And the four living creatures said, "Amen!" and the elders fell down and worshiped. - Rev. 5:6-14

Mlculwell:Nestorius divided Christ into two persons. I have already denied that false doctrine because i have said God is not a person outside the person of the son! You sir have no idea what you are talking about deal with what I say and not with what you think I am saying.

But you explain the fact that Jesus prayed to the Father by separating the humanity and divinity of Christ. So while you may not own the label you come awfully close to the doctrine. Your bottom line seems to be that you define God as not having personality and therefore you can deal with the distinction between the Father and the Son without having to admit they are two distinct Persons.

Concerning John 1: 18 the manuscript evidence supports the ESV, NASB, and NIV on this. Even if you insist on the KSV/NKJV selection of "Son", you still have to resolve the fact that He is at the Father's side, a clear reference to two Persons.

In John 12:27-28 the Son and the Father have a dialogue. This is something that persons do, they converse with one another:

27 “Now my soul is troubled, and what shall I say? ‘Father, save me from this hour’? No, it was for this very reason I came to this hour. 28 Father, glorify your name!”

Then a voice came from heaven, “I have glorified it, and will glorify it again.”

Later in John 15:16-17 the Son promises "another":

I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. -John 15:16-17

Jesus calls the Comforter "another", making a clear distinction between Himself and the "another", and He also refers to the Comforter as "he", a clear designation of personhood, and furthermore Christ defines the Comforter as having a distinct work and purpose to perform which is plainly different from the work and purpose performed by Jesus.

Since the Biblical witness is that there is but One true and living God, and since the Bible also bears witness that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit each act as individual, divine, personal agents; agents which are plainly, consistently, and clearly represented as God - and which are also presented as being simultaneously active, yet distinct divine personal agents then we are to honor the Scriptures as God's self-revelation and accept that He exists as He says, as the Triune One true and living God.

The main issue with Oneness in its varieties is a fundamental misunderstanding of "person" and "being," usually equating the two. Dr. White's book is an excellent resource on this.

I'm sorry if you consider this hijacking, but I think the clearest place in Scripture that demonstrates the differentiation between the Son and the Father is Philippians 2:6-11 (don't get me wrong, John 17 is great, but I happen to think this is clearer). Christ is explicitly stated to exist equally with God, and yet "made Himself nothing" (ESV) to become a servant and die on the Cross.

If Christ was a man indwelt by the Father, how can He be said to be in very nature God? Or if Christ was simply an idea in the Father, how can He act of Himself (note that Christ made Himself a man)? And if Christ and God are the same, why doesn't Paul simply say the Father will exalt Himself, rather than the Father will exalt Christ to His own glory?

I understand my doctrines just fine. I'm asking for clarification about yours, and I don't feel like I'm getting clarification.

That's fine. There's no rule that says you have to explain yourself. I just want to give you an opportunity to do so.

That's why my challenge was phrase as it was. John 17 is easy to understand from a trinitarian perspective. My challenge was for you to try to explain it to me from a oneness perspective - but so far I cannot see any coherent explanation from you.

Now, you may turn around as you have done and assert that you don't think my explanation is coherent. I guess that's fair for you to be able to say (assuming you really believe), but it doesn't make your position any more coherent.

In other words, your attacks on trinitarianism as teaching a "hybrid" and "polytheism" don't help me understand the alternative you are trying to offer.

If all oneness has to offer is criticisms of trinitarianism ... ok ... but if you have an actual explanation of John 17 that makes sense of the Son existing before the foundation of the world and having glory then, I'd like to hear it.

Perhaps you already tried to explain that in your earlier comment. However, it's not making any sense to me. You're welcome to try again, if you like. Or not. It's up to you.

Again Jesus gave a Key word trinitarins Bypass that and ignore the keyword and go for what they think is obvious and spiritual when it is a shallow gloss over scripture.

I can also take the shallow glossary reading and not really dig into what is being said.

His glory.(His slaying and God providing it )

Why do you think the KJV translators Chose the words and phrasing of Revelation 13:8? Jesus was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Jesus was no more literally slain than he were literally having glory with the father pre-existing as god the son.

1st Peter 1:19-20 Goes hand in hand with Revelation 13:8

But with the precious Blood of Christ as of a Lamb without blemish and without spot who verily was foreordained but was manifest in these last times for you.

Both passages indicate a *plan* taking place this was the glory he had with the father and it was not a literal slaying any more than the son literally existed.

Jesus also Used the very same the literal language but revealed it was more in John 6:35-51 Jesus said I am the bread of life.

Verse 38

Jesus said he came down from heaven the continued context is as the bread of Life.

Verse 51 he gets into greater detail.

The keywords are *the living bread.*I am the living bread which came down from heaven.

Pay attention and the bread I will give *is my flesh*.

Jesus said the bread I will give (Which came from heaven) IS MY FLESH.

Understand? Jesus was no more literal bread, than he came down from heaven as god the son.. Did his flesh literally come from heaven. NO!

His flesh as our sacrifice was provided from heaven by the spirit of God both in him and in heaven.

You are focus on him saying *he came from heaven* and as god the son(Words you would insert)

But Jesus is not saying he literally came from heaven as the son at all.

Trinitarins Like the Jews missed what was spiritual and go for the obvious, to miss the spiritual, just like Nicodemus when Jesus told him spiritual things did in John 3:4-5 How can man be born when he is old can he enter the second time into his mothers womb?

The Glory was The plan of God for redemption through his sinless sacrifice and it would be God himself manifest in the flesh.

That was the glory he had with the father before the world was. It was not as two person of God in some weird lovingly staring into each others eyes throughout eternity.

I see lots of name calling and contempt coming from the Oneness side, but I see little if any dealing with the texts of Scripture.

Coram, The son did not exist at creation period! Even though man was made in his image.

That's not what the Apostle John says.

He says:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him. He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light. The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John bore witness about him, and cried out, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.’”) And from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace.

This corresponds well Colossians 1:15-16 which designate Jesus Christ as the Creator in the beginning:

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities — all things were created through him and for him.

I'll trust the Apostles John and Paul who claim that Jesus Christ [the Son] was in the beginning [making Christ the eternal Son of God], with God [a clear reference to the Father] as the Lamb of God slain before the foundations of the world. Incidentally for Christ to be the Lamb of God slain before the foundations of the world points towards an eternal plan that pre-existed creation itself, meaning the Lamb [Christ the eternal Son] must have existed before the creation with Him who sits upon the throne [the Father] just as we see in Rev. 5:6-14.

And as already pointed out Jesus Christ made a distinction between His Person and work, and the Person and work of the Holy Spirit who the Father would send, showing three Persons of God. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit - the eternal Triune One true and living God.

Oh BTW, I am not "calling names" if that is what you are accusing me of. The trinity doctrine is being pointed out by me as polytheism. That is not name calling it is pointing out the problems in the doctrine.

Do you have a real man in your version of Jesus or not or are you just giving lip service and have a deity known as God the son only?

If you do not have a real man in Jesus then (1st.John 4:2) tells us that is the doctrine of Antichrist.

To deny Jesus was a real man as God come in the flesh is Just as Bad as denying he was the one true God!

Jesus again is creator because of the incarnation not in spite of it you confuse those facts!

The son born of Mary was not back at creation but rather his deity .

His deity incarnating him was not "god the son" but God the father.

There are only two clear incarnation passages and John 1:1 is not one of them!

John 14:10 The father that dwelleth in me he doeth the works and miracles you see me do.

Incarnation comes from Latin

In is a preposition Carne means meat or flesh.

In other words: God was In Christ reconciling the world unto himself.(2.Cor.5:19) Notice it did not say God was Christ, but makes a distinction. It is because of the incarnation.

The Deity of Christ was the creator not his humanity and sonship. Son in relation to Jesus is not a term of divinity.

John 1:1 is further telling us about the plan of God for redemption of mankind through hsi spoken word. yes the incarnation has to do with it, but John is not telling us the word was the son pre-incarnate. that is not at all what John is teaching. The word is the spoken plan of God spoken from the very begging of Gen.3 where the Head of the serpent would be bruised or cut off.

(Psalm 33:6 Septuagint Greek of the OT) By the word/Logos of the LORD were the heavens made and all the host of them by the breath of his Mouth.

I think your position is that the deity set forth in the Holy Bible who is sometimes known as God the Father, and sometimes known as the Son [the man Christ Jesus], and sometimes known as the Holy Spirit is actually always Jesus.

Furthermore, the deity sometimes known as known as God the Father, and sometimes known as the Son [the man Christ Jesus], and sometimes known as the Holy Spirit, but who is actually always Jesus took on a body of flesh for Himself at the Incarnation when born of the virgin Mary.

It's only after this point in time that we can rightly refer to Jesus Christ as the Son of God, because prior to this point there was no "son of God" in existence, rather the son of God came into existence when His body was formed in Mary's womb and joined with the spirit of God the Father, who is actually always Jesus.

But after His Incarnation and bodily ascension into heaven the deity known as God the Father, and sometimes known as the Son [the man Christ Jesus], and sometimes known as the Holy Spirit, but who is actually always Jesus came back to earth in the form of the Holy Spirit where He indwells His people and convicts the world of sin, righteousness, and the judgment to come.

So while the deity sometimes known as God the Father, and sometimes known as the Son [the man Christ Jesus], and sometimes known as the Holy Spirit, but who is actually always Jesus is a spirit, the deity sometimes known as God the Father, and sometimes known as the Son [the man Christ Jesus], and sometimes known as the Holy Spirit but who is actually always Jesus also always inhabits the Incarnated body of the man Christ Jesus [since the Incarnation], and while the man Christ Jesus who is inhabited by the deity sometimes known as God the Father, and sometimes known as the Son [the man Christ Jesus], and sometimes known as the Holy Spirit, but who is actually always Jesus is physically in heaven, nevertheless the deity sometimes known as God the Father, and sometimes known as the Son [the man Christ Jesus], and sometimes known as the Holy Spirit, but who is actually always Jesus is also currently on the earth as the Holy Spirit where He indwells His people and convicts the world of sin, righteousness, and the judgment to come, but nevertheless is still the deity sometimes known as God the Father, and sometimes known as the Son [the man Christ Jesus], and sometimes known as the Holy Spirit, but who is actually always Jesus.

So then the deity "Jesus" may have been known by titles or descriptions such as "Father" or "Son" or "Holy Spirit" but these titles or descriptions are just representations of the role Jesus happened to be playing at any given time. So at one time Jesus appears as the Father, at other times Jesus appears as the Son, and at other times Jesus appears as the Holy Spirit, but it is always actually Jesus, the One true God.

Coram where did you answer my questions. This is what trins do. They ignore your questions and want you to only answer theirs. Because they pompously assume they are the only ones correct about God so everything else is meaningless accept what they have to say or the questions they ask.

Your issue is with Scripture which describes personality to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

The Father says I :

Matt 3:17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

The Son says I :

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

The Holy Spirit says I :

Acts 13:2 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.

Scripture likewise teaches only one God exist.

Isa 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Oneness Pentecostalism / aka modalism has no place in it's system of heretical theology for proper use of human languages when it comes to personal pronouns. It must ignore and deny normal use of human language. Modalist always love to grossly misstate what Trinitarianism really teaches. You are a good case in point. You claim that the Trinity teaches 3 different and separate gods and call it polytheism when in reality it teaches only one God exist in 3 eternal distinctions namely eternally as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Trinitarianism is monothiesm. It properly sees the existance of one God and also properly sees the relational distinctions between the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

"I affirm father, son,(Not god the son, no such term in scripture.) and Holy Ghost are God. "

Oneness Petecostals themselves use terms not found in Scripture itself. Special pleading is what Modalist generally do. There is nothing in Scripture which says we cant use any theological terms not in Scripture to use to decribe a doctrine of Scripture. The issue is the doctrine itself and not the theological term ued to decribe it.

chaferDTS wrote:Your issue is with Scripture which describes personality to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.------------------------------------when I use the term *person* am I speaking of God or man? Your term for God is weak and limiting. Your term For God in the word person is confusion.The spirit of god is not a person even though he has what we view as personality. Actually he God is on a higher plain and we as Oneness do not explain God with your term and definition not found in scripture in the way in which you use it.

That is why we say: Jesus is the only person of God in relation to his humanity.

God is (One Holy )Spirit(John 4:24, 1st.Peter 1:15, Psalm 99:9 Which God?) So we reject your doctrine of the trinity and it's non-scriptural terms...------------------------------------ CDTS:The Father says I :

Matt 3:17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.------------------------------------So? The father is the ONLY *I* (Holy)Spirit of God. In Whom(The In Whom that he was in was the person of Jesus. One God(I) In Jesus(I in-carnated in One real man.)

That does not make 2 I's of God. That is still only One God and one man. That is what the incarnation is.

Tell us about your version where you have a hybrid mix of neither God nor man but god the son only?

-----------------------------------CDTS:

The Son says I :

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.------------------------------------That is right! he was the sinless son of god born of Mary. The I was his humanity(That you deny) that was Incarnated by the one God making him the one God! Why did he say all power in heaven and earth is given unto me?(Math.28:18)------------------------------------

CDTS:The Holy Spirit says I :

Acts 13:2 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.------------------------------------

Again God is Spirit(John 4:24) God is Holy(Psalm 99:9, 1st.Peter 1:15) which God?-------------------------------------

Scripture likewise teaches only one God exist.

Isa 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.------------------------------------You do not seem to be affirming there is One God the seeming confusion with the passages you supplied.... I asked you which God was Holy and Spirit? The scripture teaches there is Only One spirit,One Lord, One God who is father of all which God is that?

every passage you use I use also. But I do not get three persons of God which is just a copout to excuse yourself from answering hard questions. We all see the prohibition and sin of Polytheism. I understand you would not make that claim. But your doctrine is too contradictory.-----------------------------------

CDTS:Oneness Pentecostalism / aka modalism has no place in it's system of heretical theology for proper use of human languages when it comes to personal pronouns.------------------------------------

I do not run from the personal pronouns being used I embrace them and I never ever use the the copout of modes.

Most Oneness Understand the distinctions made because of the incarnation but you surely do not!Jesus was both a real man and the very real one God because of the incarnation you mix the deity and humanity for something new Just so that you will not have two persons but makes your doctrine even more heretical than calling Jesus two persons as you have a Hercules Hybrid of neither God nor man. You have not given that an ounce of thought and no one has ever challenged you on it but that is why I am here.------------------------------------CDTS: It must ignore and deny normal use of human language. Modalist always love to grossly misstate what Trinitarianism really teaches.

------------------------------------If anyone is ignoring anything it is clearly you! I will continue to point out the problems I see with your doctrines.-----------------------------------CDTS: You are a good case in point. You claim that the Trinity teaches 3 different and separate gods and call it polytheism when in reality it teaches only one God exist in 3 eternal distinctions namely eternally as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.------------------------------------I know you teach that but the scriptures do not. You can claim it all you want but for sure if it id I would be proclaiming it from the rooftops! I know the creeds taught but God's word did not! Who do you think is right?------------------------------------CDTS: Trinitarianism is monothiesm. It properly sees the existance of one God and also properly sees the relational distinctions between the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.------------------------------------No it does none of those. Not properly!------------------------------------

CDTS:

"I affirm father, son,(Not god the son, no such term in scripture.) and Holy Ghost are God. "------------------------------------ CDTS:Oneness Petecostals themselves use terms not found in Scripture itself.------------------------------------Not when those terms takeaway from scripture and actually cause confusion. How about Mary the Mother of God?

How about the wine and bread are turned into the body and blood of Christ "transubstanation."------------------------------------CDTS: Special pleading is what Modalist generally do. There is nothing in Scripture which says we cant use any theological terms not in Scripture to use to decribe a doctrine of Scripture. The issue is the doctrine itself and not the theological term ued to decribe it.------------------------------------See above. When your doctrine contradicts then it is a problem. Eternal son, God the son, and trinity contradict what is taught in scripture.

"when I use the term *person* am I speaking of God or man? Your term for God is weak and limiting. Your term For God in the word person is confusion.The spirit of god is not a person even though he has what we view as personality. Actually he God is on a higher plain and we as Oneness do not explain God with your term and definition not found in scripture in the way in which you use it. "

Empty claims of no foundation of substance. The word person when used of God Himself refers strictly to His personality as God has self awareness of Himself in relationship not only Himself but in His own creation. The confusion lies in Modalism in that they have a very poor understanding of Scripture and evidently poor reading skills and illogic. Modalist refuse to allow God to tell us who He is . The Spirit of God is the Holy Spirit whom is the Lord God. From what I see you deny the Deity and personality of the Holy Spirit.

"That is why we say: Jesus is the only person of God in relation to his humanity. "

Your illogic does not follow there. Plus goes againist the teaching of Scripture of God the Father sending His only begotten Son.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

"God is (One Holy )Spirit(John 4:24,"

Yes God is spirit. That does not deal with the issue of the distinctions of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Bad illogic in your use of that verse and claim as if it goes againist the Trinity when it does not.

"1st.Peter 1:15,"

God is Holy. No disagreement in that. Yet this does not deal with the issues on the distinctions of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. basically you miscited it as if it supports you when it does not deal with the issue.

"Psalm 99:9 Which God?) "

The Lord God is Holy. That does not deal with the issue of the distinctions between the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. In trinitarianism the Lord God is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are one God. When the Lord God is called Holy it is referring to the Trinity. Your " which God " strawman argument is a joke. Is this the best type of arguments that Modalist have ?

"So? The father is the ONLY *I* (Holy)Spirit of God. In Whom(The In Whom that he was in was the person of Jesus. One God(I) In Jesus(I in-carnated in One real man.) That does not make 2 I's of God"

That is not dealing with the text. It is God the Father saying I in the text. And shows His distinction from the Son Jesus Christ of whom is being baptized in that verse and in distinction of the Holy Spirit who appeared in the form of a dove over Jesus during His baptism. The word I indicates his self awareness of His distinct personality from the Son and the Holy Spirit.

"That is still only One God and one man. That is what the incarnation is. "

It shows the distinction between the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. It was the Son of God who became incarnate. Jesus is fully God and fully human two natures in one person. The text refutes the claim of Jesus being " the Father incarnate " that is held by modalist such as yourself ,UPC and others. The true doctrine of the incarnation teaches Jesus is the Son of God incarnate.

"So we reject your doctrine of the trinity and it's non-scriptural terms..."

You have no biblical basis for the rejection of the Trinity much less the double standards in the rejection of nonbiblical terms that modalist themselves use a lot when speaking and in their heretical writings. Remember you are the one who denies the Deity of the Son of God .

"That is right! he was the sinless son of god born of Mary. The I was his humanity(That you deny) that was Incarnated by the one God making him the one God! "

The I refers to the person of Jesus Christ. Not one nature in contrast to the other in communication which you have it to be. Jesus is the way to the Father which shows a personal distinction between Him and the Father. The personal pronouns I and Me shows this contrast of their distinct personalities.

"Why did he say all power in heaven and earth is given unto me?(Math.28:18) "

It refers to the Lord God in His threefold state of being as Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. The modalist when they use that verse deny the authority that also belongs to the Father and the Holy Spirit since they claim the one name refers to Jesus.

That does not deal with what I stated. God is spirit and is Holy. That does not deny or deal with the distinctions between the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit has self identification in Acts 13:2 which I cited to you. He is called The Lord the Holy Spirit in Acts 13:2. The Holy Spirit is God. You again used standard Modalist mo strawman on the Trinity. I affirm one God alone exist and not 3 different gods as you claim. That is dishonest and after a period of time would render you a liar if I keep having to correct you on that strawman argument.

"You do not seem to be affirming there is One God the seeming confusion with the passages you supplied.... I asked you which God was Holy and Spirit?"

I specifically stated only One God exist in my post. Why resorting to lies ? Here is exactly what I said to show the level of dishonesty found amoung Modalist.

Scripture likewise teaches only one God exist.

Isa 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

I teach one God exist and that this one God is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. The Lord God is stated to be Holy which refers to each person in the Trinity.

"The scripture teaches there is Only One spirit,One Lord, One God who is father of all which God is that?"

Eph 4:4 which you are misinterpreting the one Spirit refers to the Holy Spirit. The one Lord refers to the Lord Jesus Christ. One God and Father of all refers to God the Father. The passage is strongly Trinitarian. The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are distinct roles and unified in the divine nature and plan in His outworking in His elect people in the context of Ephesians.

"every passage you use I use also. But I do not get three persons of God which is just a copout to excuse yourself from answering hard questions. We all see the prohibition and sin of Polytheism. I understand you would not make that claim. But your doctrine is too contradictory. "

What you do is change or deny the plain reading of each and every passage I cited. Your own post and comments to me on those verses showed this to me. You so called questions to me in your previous post does not reflex my own beliefs and is rather a strawman and misrepresentation of it. I hold to monotheism. But that is the myth and lies that is used by Oneness Pentecostals and all modalist. That is standard mo. Bearing false wittness and lying is sin of which you are guilty of doing both to me. I teach only One God exist and that belief in one God is monotheism and not polytheism.

"I do not run from the personal pronouns being used I embrace them and I never ever use the the copout of modes."

Your previous post shows otherwise. Plus the use of illogic and misrepresentation in your post. Standard Modalist mo is misrepresent the Trinity by saying it teaches tritheism or polytheism and then ignore what Scripture teaches.

"Most Oneness Understand the distinctions made because of the incarnation but you surely do not!Jesus was both a real man and the very real one God because of the incarnation you mix the deity and humanity for something new Just so that you will not have two persons but makes your doctrine even more heretical than calling Jesus two persons as you have a Hercules Hybrid of neither God nor man. You have not given that an ounce of thought and no one has ever challenged you on it but that is why I am here. "

Your whole argument is a gross misrepresentation of my position. I hold that Jesus is fully God and fully human two natures in one person. That is nothing like what we find in Hercules and other claimed pagan deities. Then your own argument bites you right back since you hold Jesus is the Father incarnate. You are the one who does not think things out here as displayed in the types of arguments in which you have used. Modalist are no challenge to me at all. I have over the past 19 years I have had many one on one discussions with them. I can say that none of them are able to either refute me or to interact properly with regard to my position. I usually end up spending a great deal of time correcting them on what the Trinity teaches , misquoting of the church fathers also their many miscitations of church history books and commentaries. When all is said and done the fact is modalist really deny the incarnation and the hypostatic union.

"If anyone is ignoring anything it is clearly you! I will continue to point out the problems I see with your doctrines. "

All you do is show that you have no idea what you are talking about with regard to the trinity since you keep misrepresenting what it teaches. I went right to the text of Scripture with proper interpretation which is way more than what can be said of you on this point.

"I know you teach that but the scriptures do not. You can claim it all you want but for sure if it id I would be proclaiming it from the rooftops! I know the creeds taught but God's word did not! Who do you think is right?"

If you know I teach this then that may mean you are intentionally misrepresenting me and others as teaching 3 separate and different gods exist when it is strongly affirmed one God exist. If you knew the creeds you would not make the blunders which you have done here on what you claim of the Trinity.

"No it does none of those. Not properly!"

Monotheism is the belief in the existence of one God. Trinitarianism affirms this. It properly sees the Lord God as eternally as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit . The problem lies in the modalism denials of the Biblical facts and reality.

"I affirm father, son,(Not god the son, no such term in scripture.) and Holy Ghost are God. "

Modalism in the final factor denies the eternal existence and deity of the Son of God and the Holy Spirit. Hence your view is the Father became incarnate. Then claim the name of God is Jesus Christ. Very flawed and illogic modalism really is.

I did not ask if he were fully God and fully man that is a codeword for not answering I have been over too many times with you trins.

Fully God, and Fully man is a copout! Is Jesus a real man? To deny that is just as bad as denying he is the one true God.

You quote John 3:16 Like it agrees with your doctrine and it does not!

God sent his only begotten son. Only begotten has nothing to do with pre-existence.

It has everything to do with Him being the Only miraculously sired and born son of God the father and Mary his mother.

There is no other!

Which God is Holy, and which God is spirit?

All three of them two of them? Which? You have more than One Holy Spirit that scripture does not speak of! This highlights the polytheism of the trinity doctrine. This is yet another problem in your doctrine. I wrote:"God is spirit and is Holy".

You then wrote: "That does not deny or deal with the distinctions between the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit has self identification in Acts 13:2 which I cited to you. He is called The Lord the Holy Spirit in Acts 13:2. The Holy Spirit is God."

As opposed to the other God called the Holy Spirit? There is only one spirit(Eph.4:4-6) God is spirit(John 4:24) God is also Holy(Psalm 99:9,1st.Peter 1:15) Which God?

Hey CDTS, I am over here! Stop trying to debate me from your bad apologetics We believe in the distinction of the father and son. You are the one that has no distinction in Jesus humanity and divinity but mix him for a hybrid Hercules of neither.

So me bringing up the blatant contradictions that I see of your doctrine is lying? Please? You do not want to be scrutinized. We reject your doctrine of the trintiy for the reasons I bring Up. I know you believe your doctrine is Monotheism but you are biased for that hand me down doctrine.

"Not when those terms takeaway from scripture and actually cause confusion. How about Mary the Mother of God? "

I personally call Mary the mother of our Lord that is used in Luke 1:43. The Lord there is Jesus Christ. It has in view of Jesus being fully God and fully human two natures in one person. Jesus Christ is the Son of God incarnate. I have no problem with the use of the word " Mary the Mother God " when it is properly defined according to Scripture. I personally dont use that term due to the gross misunderstanding of it that Roman Catholicism has done to it. The term itself does not make it right or wrong. I consider you are using illogic on that.

"How about the wine and bread are turned into the body and blood of Christ "transubstanation."

The bread and wine are called the Body of Christ in Scripture. The issue of debate is over the mode of the presence of Jesus . I do not hold to the doctrine of transsubstantiation, consubstantion or the mere memorial view. The term is not what makes it heretical but rather what it teaches. On the issue of the Lord's Supper I hold to the Reformed position commonly understood as " Spiritual presence " that is held by Presbyterianism in the Westminster Confession Of Faith and low church Anglicanism as reflected in the Thirty-Nine Articles.

"See above. When your doctrine contradicts then it is a problem. Eternal son, God the son, and trinity contradict what is taught in scripture. "

I did . I remain unmoved by your various arguments of which lacks substance to them. The Son of God is God who is eternal. Hence you in reality deny the Deity of the Son of God. Since Jesus is the Son of God is fully deity he is therefore eternal which is an attribute which belongs to God.

God the son did not incarnate. The son of God was incarnated By God. The trinity version is the doctrine of confusion!

The son of God is not a a term of divinity! The son of God was Born of Mary. When the fullness of time was come God sent forth his(In time) MADE of a woman MADE under the Law. Jesus was God manifest in the flesh but your doctrine does not allow for Jesus to be a real man but God only in the appearance of a man thus your fully man copout term! This is antichrist doctrine!

You excused yourself from answering my charges because you are pompous and presumptuous, you feel you are not subject to any of my scrutiny but I better answer to every question and scrutiny you give to me. I see this all the time from you folks.

"I did not ask if he were fully God and fully man that is a codeword for not answering I have been over too many times with you trins. "

The is an issue which you raised since you claim Trinitarians have Jesus as half god and half man. The problem is you dont know how to listen to the other side. The issue does have the issue of the two natures of Jesus as the foundation. The trinity flows from this foundation. Jesus is fully God and fully human two natures in one person . You claim it is the father incarnate while trinitarians hold it is the Son of God incarnate. You avoid this at all cost.

"Fully God, and Fully man is a copout! Is Jesus a real man? To deny that is just as bad as denying he is the one true God."

When you make gross misrepresentations of my beliefs it is not a copout but stating a point of fact here. Jesus has a body , soul and spirit . He also has His divine nature. Therefore He is fully God and fully human two natures in one person forever since the incarnation. The heresy that is rejected is the modalist claim that Jesus is the father incarnate instead of being the Son of God incarnate. Modalism in it's basic heresy is built on the view of the sonship incarnation theory.

"You quote John 3:16 Like it agrees with your doctrine and it does not! It has everything to do with Him being the Only miraculously sired and born son of God the father and Mary his mother."

God sent his only begotten son. Only begotten has nothing to do with pre-existence.It shows the personal distinction between the Father and the Son of God. Jesus is the Son that was sent. Therefore refutes the modalism view that the Father became incarnate when it says the Son in John 3:16. Only begotton refers to the special relationship between Jesus Christ as the Son of God which He has with God the Father. Only begotten refers to their relationship and not anything biological as modalist incorrect understand it to mean.

"There is no other!"

It says the Son was given and not the Father. Therefore that in itself refutes you and all modalist.

"Which God is Holy, and which God is spirit?"

The Lord God. Since the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are one God. That is nothing more than a modalist strawman which shows you dont know or understand what the trinity teaches. Standard modalist mo .

"All three of them two of them? Which? You have more than One Holy Spirit that scripture does not speak of!"

The Lord God is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. One God alone exist as I said before. Yet you keep using strawman arguments. Then you misrepresent Trinitarianism . Trinitarianism teaches there is one person of God the father, one person of the Son of God and one person of the Holy Spirit. They are one God not 3 as you strongly imply. I guess you have nothing but misrepresentations as apologetics and nothing of biblical proof.

You tried to make an argument from the Only begotten son of God being sent.

I gave the passage in Gal.4:4 Where God sent forth his son.(How LORD?) MADE of a woman made under the law. This is what trins constantly Do is twist the scriptures and tweek them just enough to try and fool even if it is to prove his deity (Which is truht But not at all like the trins prop up.

" This highlights the polytheism of the trinity doctrine. This is yet another problem in your doctrine."

I believe in the existence of one God. That is monotheism and not polytheism. That is another lie stated here by you. You deny the Deity of the Son of God and the Holy Spirit. :)

"As opposed to the other God called the Holy Spirit? There is only one spirit(Eph.4:4-6) God is spirit(John 4:24) God is also Holy(Psalm 99:9,1st.Peter 1:15) Which God?"

There is only One God and not different gods as you are intentionally lying and using strawman arguments. Since each person in the Trinity is God the word holy is used of each person. The fact that God is spirit does not mean there is no person of the Holy Spirit of who is God Himself. Very flawed illogical thinking you are using .

"Hey CDTS, I am over here! Stop trying to debate me from your bad apologetics We believe in the distinction of the father and son. You are the one that has no distinction in Jesus humanity and divinity but mix him for a hybrid Hercules of neither."

You are the one using horrible apologetics. You are the one using strawman arguments and gross misrepresentation of what the trinity teaches. That is standard modalist mo historically speaking. You deny the distinct personality of the Son of God which is a core issue here. Your claim is Jesus is the Father incarnate instead of the Son of God incarnate. Sorry I dont believe in demi-gods that the Romans and Greeks practices. Funny you are using an claim that is used by Atheist againist Christianity with regard to the incarnation . Yet you make an exception of this for yourself . That is called special pleading which is a logical fallacy. You have 2 distinct personalities in Jesus yet you inconsistantly attack the Trinity as teaching a tri-personal existence of God. Look at yourself in the mirror and dont project your theological flaws and practice on others.

Funny you are using an claim that is used by Atheist againist Christianity with regard to the incarnation . Yet you make an exception of this for yourself . That is called special pleading which is a logical fallacy. ------------------------------------

Even a broken Clock is right two times a day. In this the Atheists are correct in pointing out the problems in your doctrine. It can be seen from a hundred miles away. You might try and correct it because it is a big problem and you are not being honest with yourself.

------------------------------------

You have 2 distinct personalities in Jesus yet you inconsistantly attack the Trinity as teaching a tri-personal existence of God.

------------------------------------

Let's Go ahead I say I do have two distinct personalities is that two personalities of God? No absolutely not! One real man and one real God are not two personalities of God!

Yes I will attack the trinity because It is false doctrine propped up as truth.

"God the son did not incarnate. The son of God was incarnated By God. The trinity version is the doctrine of confusion! "

Scripture says " unto us a Son is given " which shows that the Son of God Jesus became incarnate. It does not state a Father us given at all as your view demands at all. The confusion lies in Modalism due to it does not know who God really is.

"The son of God is not a a term of divinity! "

Evidently you have never read John 10:31-36. The Jews wanted to stone Jesus for it .

"The son of God was Born of Mary. When the fullness of time was come God sent forth his(In time) MADE of a woman MADE under the Law. Jesus was God manifest in the flesh but your doctrine does not allow for Jesus to be a real man but God only in the appearance of a man thus your fully man copout term! This is antichrist doctrine! "

Galations 4:4 calls Jesus as the " sent forth Son " . Therefore shows the eternal prexistance of the Son since He had to have existed in order to be sent forth. Plus Jesus is stated to be sent forth by " God " which refers to the Father in that verse. Jesus has full humanity which is body, soul and spirit. Yet you wish to misrepresent trinitarians on that point. All you have is strawman arguments really and nothing of any positive presentation of your own position. That is standard Modalist mo.The doctrine of the incarnation and hypostatic union are doctrines that are from the Trinity. I guess you lack any historical study on that. To accuse Trinitarianism of the heresy of Docetism is to be utterly dishonest and historically ignorant of the issues and of reality.

"You excused yourself from answering my charges because you are pompous and presumptuous, you feel you are not subject to any of my scrutiny but I better answer to every question and scrutiny you give to me. I see this all the time from you folks."

All your charges are false. The one who is " pompous and presumtous " is you. Look at yourself in the mirror and not project your own short comings on others. I answered each and every question you asked. The problem lies in your questions assume your misrepresentation of Trinitarianism as being polytheism and of docetism. Both of which are gross lies which you have claimed here. All modalist do for apologetics is use of strawman arguments and misrepresentations. They have nothing else to go on.

Chafer and others going toe to toe with Manuel, I commend you even in light of these words, sensing that they are not far away from the Truth of what is going on inside of him?

Tit 3:9 But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. Tit 3:10 As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, Tit 3:11 knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.

"I saw "we," expecting that CDS agrees. If he does not, though, of course he's free to say so himself."

I do affirm that Jesus has a human will and a divine will in His one person. I do fully agree that Jesus has a full divine nature in addition to His human nature. I took a little break from answering the modalist here after several post I did. My head is still spining from the evident confusion he has over the Trinity and his persistant false accusation of polytheism being made.

Jesus was deity was the God to whom the word was with. Jesus was not a pre-existent god the word. John 1:1 did not call the word the son. The word was made flesh then he was the son ie. God manifest in the flesh.

"Jesus was deity was the God to whom the word was with. Jesus was not a pre-existent god the word."

John 1 tells us that:

The Word was in the beginning. (vs. 1)The Word was with God. (vs. 1)The Word was God. (vs. 1)

The Word was made flesh. (vs. 14)The Word is the "only begotten of the Father." (vs. 14)

The only begotten is the Son. (vs. 18)

The Son is the Son of God. (vs. 49)

The Son is the Son of man. (vs. 51)

That is why we affirm that the Word was always God (for he was so in the beginning), and that the Word is distinct from the Father (for he was with God in the beginning), that the word was always the Son of God, and that the Word became the Son of man by being conceived in the womb of Mary and born of her.

"John 1:1 did not call the word the son."

Agreed.

"The word was made flesh then he was the son ie. God manifest in the flesh."

Then he was the son of man, but he was always the son of God.

We can see that he was always the son of God, because

God gave his only begotten Son (John 3:16)

God sent his Son into the world (John 3:17)(1 John 4:9)

The Son of God came into the world (John 11:27)

God sent his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh (Romans 8:3)

God sent forth his Son when the fulness of time was come (Galatians 4:4)

The Son of God was manifested (1 John 3:8)

The Son of God has come (1 John 5:20)

All these statements show us that the Son of God was always God the Son. He became the Son of Man by being incarnate, but the son was sent, came, and was manifested to the world.

I wrote:"The word was made flesh then he was the son ie. God manifest in the flesh."

You wrote:" Then he was the son of man, but he was always the son of God."

The son of man is the son of God. Mary was his Mother, and Mary did not cause the Miracle in her womb. It took God as His father. The son of God did not exist!

(Adam) who was the figure of Him that was to come.(Romans 5;14 KJV)

Jesus was Not back at creation as the son. But God included the son when he said:" Let us make man in our image".(Gen.1:26) that Image was none other than the coming son in the incarnation. Jesus is the image (That seen) of the invisible(. God (Col.1:15) In other words the us and our refered to the coming incarnation. Jesus was not that God as son or he would could not be seen as the invisible spirit.

TF wrote:"We can see that he was always the son of God, because

God gave his only begotten Son" (John 3:16)

What? LOL! You take the words of God and twist them completely opposite of what they say.

Only begotten son refers to his miraculous birth. Jesus is the only son of God born of a virgin and miraculously sired by God's holy Spirit.(Math.1:20)

THAT WHICH IS CONCEIVED IN HER IS OF THE HOLY GHOST MAKING THE HOLY GHOST THE FATHER.

Angels and Christians are sons of God. Jesus is the only begotten son. That means he was the Only Miraculously sired and born of a virgin son.

Copyright Notice - (C) 2006-2011 TurretinFan

This blog tries to comply with international standards of "fair use" and "fair dealing" in its use of copied material. If you feel that a use of your material is "unfair" contact the blog owner: contact information is available on the blog owner's profile.Contrariwise, those same international standards permit you to make "fair use" and "fair dealing" with the material presented here.More